PGA Tour: Travelling to The Travelers: Notes from the Ballwasher

First topic message reminder :

1).Well, that was the US Open that was. And certainly not the result expected last Thursday, Friday, Saturday, even most of Sunday. But all credit to Webb Simpson, proof positive that you don't have to be the best golfer all week, just hold your nerve the final eight holes. Furyk has won a US Open from the front, McDowell has done the trick, sort of, and it was a surprise that Furyk would unravel and McDowell would suddenly find his GPS on the blink after driving the ball so well all week and all season (leads the Tour in driving accuracy, Furyk is second but not on Sunday).

2).Simpson for me is one of the top young American golfers (Haas, Stanley, Bradley, etc, etc.) who has proved himself to be streaky good, and streaky average. We'll never know whether he would have won from either of the last two groups, but what he do know is that he's highly questionable for Lytham and The Open Championship. His wife, with the highly questionable name of Dowd, is due to give birth to a baby Spider in a month's time and she's given him the most appropriate yellow card about his July and August plans. (How many other PGA Tour couples are named after Prem Referees? Howard and Phil must be thrilled!)

3).The Top Eight from the Olympic Club qualify for next year's Masters; most are already assured of qualification via other routes, but some are not:
2nd: Michael Thompson, he of the very average ball-striking stat's, but a terrific putter who should probably already have his first Tour win, at last year's McGladreys where he missed out on a playoff by one stroke, presumably not helped by playing with Billy Horschel who was in full meltdown.
4th: David Toms.
4th: Jim Furyk.
4th: John Petersen - who holed in one on the 13th, but was excluded from last year's Walker Cup team following some incendiary remarks about College golfers being as good as PGA Tour pros. Peterson showed just who's boss by flunking ignominiously out of the early stages of 2011 Q-School, but he's a talent and we'll hear from him again. And again.

4).And those in the Top Ten last week qualified for a US Open date at Merion next year, the above mentioned obviously, plus:
9th: Ernie Els.
10th: Casey Wittenberg - like Peterson, Casey has no PGA Tour status having lost his card and never regaining it.
10th: John Senden.
10th: Kevin Chappell, 3rd last year at Congressional.

5).I thought Olympic looked fabulous, almost as good as San Francisco itself. Not sure about some pin and tee placements by the USGA but the pros seemed to love the greens and the overall course conditions.

6).And so the US domination of the PGA Tour season continues, and Greg Norman was the last non-American to win in Hartford so don't hold your breath on anything changing soon. Tjaart van der Walt is the only non-American runner up in that time. I knew you'd want to know.
EDIT: As pointed out below by robo, Sweden's Freddie Jac (the Tour's best tennis-table player according to Bobby Clampett) won last year; suffice to say overseas players still have a rotten record at Hartford but I need to get my facts straight.

7).It only makes sense that stifling heat and humidity will greet the PGA Tour's best as they travel to the north-east for a rare visit. It will be close to 100F in Hartford for Round 1, 90's on Friday and mid-80's at least for the weekend. TPC River Highlands is the 3rd shortest course the pros play all year and it will surely play even shorter than usual this week. 59 watch?? Brand new pro Cantlay shot 60 last year as an amateur so you never know!

8).The PGA Tour loves the three consecutive Major wins by Americans: Featured groupings for Rounds 1 and 2 are headed by, you guessed it, Keegan Bradley, Bubba and Webb Simpson.

9).I'm not a big fan of following those fresh off Major contention for the following week, (tho Michael Thompson was 4th here in 2011) so who should we fancy this week? What about Ryan Moore, second here twice already, or Hunter Mahan who scored his first win here and followed up with two seconds?? Two outsiders worth an each way shout are Brian Davis and Nick O'Hern.

10).Finally, the Champions Tour goes international this week, with a trip to the Montreal area. The most securely locked closed shop in sport doesn't do abroad too well, even just the fifty miles or so north of the border, and the weak field offers chances to fringe players including Wales's Mark Mouland. Chapman and Lyle are also playing. At least Roger Chapman is a timely reminder that the British can still win in North America!

I will admit to knowing less about Football than almost anyone who posts here.

For the life of me, however, I don't get the overtime shoot out. Half the time the goalie totally guesses incorrectly and he goes left, ball goes right. Seems like a bit of a cr-- shoot to me.

Why not sudden death golden goal? Keep the entire team in the game.

Shotrock wrote:...Half the time the goalie totally guesses incorrectly and he goes left, ball goes right...

...unless your name is Pirlo! Genius! Super cool...

Shotrock wrote:I will admit to knowing less about Football than almost anyone who posts here.

For the life of me, however, I don't get the overtime shoot out. Half the time the goalie totally guesses incorrectly and he goes left, ball goes right. Seems like a bit of a cr-- shoot to me.

Why not sudden death golden goal? Keep the entire team in the game.

Well yeah, your summary of the shootout is more or less right. They brought it in as a superior alternative to the previous method, which was the toss of coin... that tells you something about its element of chance!

As for the sudden death suggestion... they did of course have a similar system for a while, where the first goal scored in the 30 minutes "extra time" after it finished a draw was the golden goal. Think that was scrapped because it made everyone ultra-defensive (ironic after tonight's game). I believe the main reasons for not just having a continual sudden death until someone finally scores are a) after the 30 extra minutes all the players are too shattered to carry on any longer, and b) there's the danger of no-one ever scoring and the match trailing off into the small hours. You could end up with 20 guys collapsed on the floor with cramp, and two goalkeepers hoofing the ball back and forth.

SR, remember that International tournaments have further games to play. If they carried on until someone scored the team who eventually wins would be at considerable disadvantage for the next match due to exhaustion.
(Although tennis players can play for 5 hours at a time every couple of days, so not sure why Footballers can't)

Its easy to sort that oput Super, you just take off players from both sides after 5 minutes, 10 minutes and 15 minutes. The play becomes open so its far more likely someone will score, a bit like rugby sevens.
Not ideal but way better than penalties IMO.

Nah, then people just pass it round the back for ever (unless you are playing England who can't pass), terrified of making a mistake, it would be turgid.

Nothing wrong with penalties, perhaps time to move the spot further back though.

Dont agree, spot kicks dont really prove anything, apart from the fact that England arent any good at them. It should be about open play football.

They should just carry on then until someone scores, or replace the players with 11 fans.

Maybe spot kicks should be a little like diving and ice skating. So the team with the highest total points wins. Make it that a spot kick is judged out of ten, and you only get the points if you score.

That way a penalty like Pirlo's is elevated to the level it deserved.

I think we should all try a piro style penalty next time we play. I reckon it will chunks all round.

If a team can't win a game over a 120 minutes then it should come down to who has the biggest balls.

Anyway, no Aussie wins for ages then almost two at once. Good to see Bubba playing well too, not really that high up in my favourite golfers but I wouldnt like to see him settle at a green jacket for 2012.

Thanks for your responses all.

I like the shoot out better than a coin toss!

Another thought (blasphemous as it may be) would be to increase the size of the goal in the overtime period -- say 25% each side. These are among the best conditioned athletes in the world, so an extra 30 minutes doesn't seem like that much to ask.

Shotrock wrote:Thanks for your responses all.

I like the shoot out better than a coin toss!

Another thought (blasphemous as it may be) would be to increase the size of the goal in the overtime period -- say 25% each side. These are among the best conditioned athletes in the world, so an extra 30 minutes doesn't seem like that much to ask.

Not even close.

Super, re not even close - For the England players yes but I think you give some of the rest of the teams left at this stage a discredit.

As for England's penalties what I dont understand is if England practiced penalties, quite a bit from reports, then why wasnt every penalty hit low, hard and into the corners? Why was Young anywhere near the bar with his? Rooney's was a nice height for the keeper had he gone the right way and Cole's, with his stuttering run up, was mild, meek and in no mans land.

No stuttering run ups, ball drilled along the ground hard and let your nerves (and luck) decide if you put it near enough to the corner of the goal.

I actually thought of that afterwards. Gerrard was breathing out his backside after 70 mins while Pirlo had a cigar on.

Still, I don't think even the top football players are in the same level of fitness/conditioning as Tennis players, Cyclists, Swimmers, Boxers, Triathletes, Cross Country skiiers etc. Those guys routinely need to find an extra gear, and seem to do it with far less fuss than footballers who often wilt after a mere 30 mins extra.

England need to speak to Graham Alexander and Matt Le Tissier on how to take penalties.

Id replace a shoot out with a player having the ball from 40 yards out and having a 1 on 1 with the keeper................3 of these per side

Maybe apart from Tennis players those sports people you mention tend to train for events/meetings that dont last around 10months(a football season). And I do think Djokovic is the fittest man alive at the moment but he gets a seat every 5mins!

I think people generally underestimate how fit footballers are, the top ones. Its more about keeping a level of performance as well, rather than not being unable to run - unlike 90% of that England team. See it all the time with Scottish teams in Europe and notably in Englands last two major tournaments - Britains arent fit!

Footballers aren't exactly running around all that much Lairdy either. The ball goes out of play, to different parts of the pitch, they get a 15 minute break and the game only lasts 94 minutes. It shouldn't be that much of a strain to be able to play twice a week. It's about shuttle runs, short sprints, and most UK players aren't up to it. Gerrard had cramp at 70 minutes. Unacceptable.

Even the most mobile players only cover 10 or 11 k a match, not a great average for 90 mins.

Cycling is pretty much year round, as is athletics so I disagree these people aren't constantly training and competing, just they are less well known events.
Cross Country skiers are perhaps the fittest on the planet.

Yeah, I've never got the deal with showing us how far Iniesta's run for the game. 12k for an hour and a half isnt a lot really. The level of sprinting etc has to be maintained throughout though and you've got to add in the physical battles as well, its not just running.

Maybe you've brought something else up. Training and competing are two different things. Competing should take more out of you and footballers do compete a lot.

I'd love to see the diets of the England players compared to the Italians or Spanish...

I think people are underestimating the physical effort required to complete 90 minutes of football. I can assure people, having competed in both, that 90 minutes of football is way harder than a 10k if you the game remains competitive beyond 75 mins or so.

It is also ridiculous to say British teams are not fit, man utd for example are extremely fit, hence the many 90th+ minute goals both domestically and in Europe.

Further do we have any proof that a triathlete would be in any better shape after 90 mins of football assuming they had played the game properly. Ie passing and moving, making runs for space and tracking players when they don’t have the ball. It could be a totally different type of fitness that does not transfer to football.

Another issue is the time spent on different types of training. Footballers cant just spend all day on fitness. They need to spend time on ball skills and tactical drills. They also have to compete two times a week during a season, even cyclists can get up to a month off mid season to do nothing other than train.

It is pretty laughable to think that teams could get that much fitter given the amount of money on the line. If all that separated a team from champions league glory was a few more hours a week running they would do it.

Mac, Explain how English players are so much more unfit than their Italian counterparts. Shane Lowry could have looked fitter than Gerrard and Rooney.

You cannot compare the fitness of the two teams last night. Gerrard and Parker had to chase the ball all over the pitch. While Pirlo just played within a midfield area. He di not chase or hassle any english players. Though Danielle Di Rossi, looked shot when he was subbed off.

Everything has differing types of fitness though, so its pretty hard to compare.

I thought England played pretty much up to the level of their players in the Prem, with these provisos:
Gerrard and Parker both looked as if they were still carrying injuries, short of full fitness anyway. Terry is an old 31 and hopefully his international career is over.
Rooney always needs lots of games to be sharp; some players may be able to switch it off and on but he can't, increasingly less so with age.
Johnson was better.
Young was way worse - still feel Baines would have been better as a left-sided midfield option. Failing that, play Rooney behind Carroll and Welbeck (who looked a boy among men).

Don't see why everyone waxes orgasmic about Wilshere - hasn't played in a year but I suppose someone has to fill the ten-year gap left by GerrardParkerBarryLampard.

Carrick anyone??


Kwini

a bit harsh on welbeck there, I thought i was pretty good at keeping the ball when it came to him.

Mac, will you just defend anyone with a Man Utd connection.

Wellbeck really wasn't very good against Italy at all.

Carrol was way better at holding the ball up when he was on than Welbeck.

super_realist wrote:Mac, Explain how English players are so much more unfit than their Italian counterparts. Shane Lowry could have looked fitter than Gerrard and Rooney.

You're having a laugh aren't you re. Lowry??
One thing I read about the average Italian Serie A player is they don't drink, at all, during a season. Think they may have one or two glasses of red wine during the entire season but that's it. Also thought it was instructive that they're way, way ahead on scanning for health issues, which came up after Muamba collapsed.
I also think they could do more to be the best they can be. How is it that so many footballers can maintain a single figure/Cat 1 golf handicap? They sure as hell don't spend all day training.

I suppose a single figure handicap explains how they can't pass or hold onto the ball and why they are so one footed.

They are like the British Leyland of the football world. "That'll do"

"They are like the British Leyland of the football world. "That'll do""

Or babe the sheep pig. Now he was a top performer.